Extra-Pair Copulations and Mate Guarding in the Polyterritorial Pied Flycatcher, Ficedula Hypoleuca
- 1 January 1987
- Vol. 101 (1-3), 139-154
- https://doi.org/10.1163/156853987x00404
Abstract
1. Seven out of 24 observed copulations (= 29% ) in the pied flycatcher were extra-pair copulations (EPCs). There was no significant difference between EPCs and pair copulations (PCs) with respect to timing and duration, possibly indicating that both are equally successful. Thus, proportion of copulations may reflect share of paternity. 2. Females usually do not solicit EPCs and often try to avoid them. We cannot find that females have much to gain from EPCs, while attempts to resist forced copulations may impose some costs. The fact that EPCs still are rather frequent suggests that it might be cheaper for a female to accept an EPC than to resist it. 3. Males spend much of their time mate guarding but the distance between pair members is longer for polyterritorial males than for monoterritorial males. Still, we cannot find any significant differences in risks or possibilities of EPCs between males of different mating status. However, the relaxed mate guarding by polyterritorial males suggests that these males might take higher risks, and they also suffer more territory intrusions. 4. It is most likely that male reproductive strategies are not maintained as a frequency-dependent mixed ESS with equal pay-offs for all paired males. Instead, male strategies are conditional on phenotype and breeding circumstances. 1. Seven out of 24 observed copulations (= 29% ) in the pied flycatcher were extra-pair copulations (EPCs). There was no significant difference between EPCs and pair copulations (PCs) with respect to timing and duration, possibly indicating that both are equally successful. Thus, proportion of copulations may reflect share of paternity. 2. Females usually do not solicit EPCs and often try to avoid them. We cannot find that females have much to gain from EPCs, while attempts to resist forced copulations may impose some costs. The fact that EPCs still are rather frequent suggests that it might be cheaper for a female to accept an EPC than to resist it. 3. Males spend much of their time mate guarding but the distance between pair members is longer for polyterritorial males than for monoterritorial males. Still, we cannot find any significant differences in risks or possibilities of EPCs between males of different mating status. However, the relaxed mate guarding by polyterritorial males suggests that these males might take higher risks, and they also suffer more territory intrusions. 4. It is most likely that male reproductive strategies are not maintained as a frequency-dependent mixed ESS with equal pay-offs for all paired males. Instead, male strategies are conditional on phenotype and breeding circumstances.Keywords
This publication has 16 references indexed in Scilit:
- Male Promiscuity and Female Adultery by the Rook Corvus frugilegusOrnis Scandinavica, 1983
- Extra-pair courtship in black-billed magpiesAnimal Behaviour, 1983
- Why do pied flycatcher females mate with already-mated males?Animal Behaviour, 1982
- Timing and duration of mate guarding in magpies, Pica picaAnimal Behaviour, 1982
- The Conflict Between Male Polygamy and Female Monogamy: The Case of the Pied Flycatcher Ficedula hypoleucaThe American Naturalist, 1981
- Promiscuity in Monogamous Colonial BirdsThe American Naturalist, 1979
- Rape in the Lesser Snow GooseBehaviour, 1979
- Courtship Differences in Male Ring Doves: Avoidance of Cuckoldry?Science, 1976
- Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871-1971. By Bernard Campbell. x + 378 pp., figures, tables, bibliographies, index. Aldine-Atherton, Chicago. 1972. $14.75 (cloth)American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1974
- TERRITORY IN THE PIED FLYCATCHER MUSCICAPA HYPOLEUCAIbis, 1956